Dinosawer wrote:
And on the other side of the coin, Trump supporters are harassing racial minorities, urging them to kill themselves or leave the country before their president throws them out, or just apply his lovely advice for handling women and attempting to grab their private parts.
Lovely country you guys have

Do you happen to know where I could come up with this information? Also, the women thing is likely false, because a celebrity especially one as well known as Trump would have been sued for millions prior to the elections. The fact that 10 or so women came forward during the election to state their mistreatment suggests that they are there for the publicity and to try to harm his chances at becoming president.

I think this party just started. We have yet to see who are the winners, I think.
"winners" imply loosers, and in this case I fear it to be a much larger group than anyone wants, and they are not confined to American democrats either.

What I was saying, plillevold, is that this thread isn't really appropriate for any further discussion after the result of the election was known. I see DW has started a new thread which is appropriate for further discussion of the outcome of the election.

I think this party just started. We have yet to see who are the winners, I think.
"winners" imply loosers, and in this case I fear it to be a much larger group than anyone wants, and they are not confined to American democrats either.

What I was saying, plillevold, is that this thread isn't really appropriate for any further discussion after the result of the election was known. I see DW has started a new thread which is appropriate for further discussion of the outcome of the election.

Yes, I guess this horse is beaten enough, poor creature. Though judging by the conversation, DW's thread is more about the topic of "to vote or not to vote", it seems
Perhaps a new topic is in order, I'm more interested in how the American people are faring when the country now plunges back into the Dark Ages

plillevold wrote:Though judging by the conversation, DW's thread is more about the topic of "to vote or not to vote", it seems

Yes, but the title he uses is amenable to the sort of input you are considering, plillevold. If you've never been present in IRC when DW presses the button for political mode you've missed a real treat.

Grumblesaur wrote:Fortunately there are still a handful of remaining "gotchas" in the American political system that could potentially circumvent a Trump presidency.

I endorse the sentiment, with a couple of exceptions:

1. "Circumvent" is a tricky term here. If you actually mean "ignore Constitutionally-assigned powers," then to the extent that this happens, it would only further corrupt a troubled system. That's not desirable.

But if you just mean "blocked," then that's conceivable. So let's examine the likelihood of that happening.

To take just one example, consider the blocking of nominations by Trump to various Cabinet and Supreme Court positions. When he was Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid -- a Democrat -- invoked the "nuclear option": from the four-decades-old rule of requiring a supermajority vote to break a filibuster for most presidential nominations, Reid changed the rule to require a simple majority vote. So Democrats have only themselves to blame when a Senate controlled by 51 or 52 Republicans (depending on the result of Louisiana's runoff vote on December 10) can end any minority filibuster attempt against a Trump nominee.

Furthermore, Republicans will control the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Combine this with the fact that the GOP establishment backed Trump, and it becomes very unlikely that any reasonably responsible action by Trump will be blocked.

2. It won't just be "fortunately" if the House, Senate, or Supreme Court actually do block anything Trump tries to do (or not do). It'll be because the Framers deliberately designed the U.S. government such that each branch has power to check another.

Yes, it's true that in 2017 the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate will all be controlled by one of the two major parties. In the 100 years prior, Democrats had this advantage for 35 years, compared to 16 for Republicans. Also, Republicans aren't called "The Stupid Party" for nothing; it's entirely possible that they will allow a mass media that hates them to talk them out of taking advantage of this rare (for them) opportunity to alter the U.S. federal government to satisfy conservative principles.

3. (Bonus third point) There actually is some chance that the House in particular might have a few fights with President Trump. That's because Donald Trump is a RINO: a Republican In Name Only. He was registered as a Democrat from 2001-2008, and some of his long-time positions (e.g., protectionist tariffs and isolationist foreign policy) are in direct conflict with what passes these days for conservative principles in Republican members of Congress. (Note that I'm not expressing here a view for or against any of those positions. I'm just pointing out that these views that Trump appears to hold are counter to generally Republican positions, regardless of what any of us might think about those positions.)

So overall, my guess is that the House and Senate will be just barely competent to rein in the craziest excesses of President Trump, but will otherwise be so uselessly timid and lousy at PR that the Senate goes over to the Democrats in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Meanwhile, the country itself -- the people who thought Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were acceptable candidates for the U.S. presidency -- will continue to self-destruct. It will be a miracle if the U.S. survives long enough to elect President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Grumblesaur wrote:Fortunately there are still a handful of remaining "gotchas" in the American political system that could potentially circumvent a Trump presidency.

I endorse the sentiment, with a couple of exceptions:

1. "Circumvent" is a tricky term here. If you actually mean "ignore Constitutionally-assigned powers," then to the extent that this happens, it would only further corrupt a troubled system. That's not desirable.

I was moreso referring to the potential for faithless electors forcing the final decision to go to the House of Representatives (the Republican majority might end up electing Trump anyway, but at that point, oh well), or (with much lesser likelihood) overturning the result into Clinton's favor. Flawed though the electoral college is, its flaws may contribute to avoiding a Trump presidency altogether.

There is also Jill Stein's recount initiative. Though I will admit that either of these could easily be unsuccessful, and that I appreciate what possibilities you've illuminated.

BFett, you know we all appreciate you around these parts. And we all know by now that you hate HC. She deserves it, I give you that. Now, trying to defend DT in any humanly possible way isn't the way to go. The guy is as much a cancer to the US (and the world) as HC can be. Somehow it hurts to read people around here discussing how awful the DT-Administration will be for the US (without trying to say that the possible alternative HC-Administration would be any better) and knowing that one of the next replies will be yours trying to say exactly that: "You can't say how horrible DT is, HC is the worst!". It gets old somehow. Both candidates were horrible to start with. That one got the chair doesn't imply that he's lesser horrible. At all. It would be the same the other way around. Their issues come from different themes (and their money and backers from different countries), but as much as horrible in the end.

Please, don't take this as a personal attack against you, as this wasn't intented to be that.

Last edited by Lum on Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I still think (as many others did), that both Hillary and Trump were just different flavoured poisons. "Do you want your suicide cool-aid grape or orange flavoured?"

However, to use the old dungeons and dragons alignment system, Hillary may have be Evil, but at least she was Neutral Evil. Trump is straight up Chaotic Evil. When you are dealing with the most powerful military on earth, as well as a stockpile of nuclear weapons, less erratic and chaotic is better.

I get that the American people wanted to shake things up. I understand that there are a great many people who are being pushed to the way side with the over zealous politically correct regressive liberal agenda who figured this was the only chance they had. I'm pretty liberal with most things, but am not a fan of some of the new extreme "like it or else" garbage that people not only have to accept, are pressured to not even question. I don't think Donald was the answer to counter this however.

Change is a fact of life, things change, the world changes. This is why I will never be a conservative. It's a shame a more "centred" person could not have taken the reigns.

Zanteogo wrote:
Change is a fact of life, things change, the world changes. This is why I will never be a conservative. It's a shame a more "centred" person could not have taken the reigns.

Here's the list of all those who ran in this last election. Who would you have preferred? Note that I'm not including 3rd party because they have never won and probably should have chosen one of the two parties if they were serious about it.

Lum, as far as I know, Trump only had a few issues that came to light during his campaign. Trump University, which is a case that he'll probably have to settle, and the sexual harassment rumors which won't likely ever be investigated or proven. Am I missing something?

BFett wrote:You'd want someone who is receiving money from foreign, radical Islam supporting, countries to run the United States?

There are many reasons why Hillary lost. I will list them all out in my next post here and let you dismiss them all as if they never existed. Because, "what difference does it make?"

And Donald Trump has conflicts of interest all over the globe. There are myriad avenues by which Trump could develop a corrupt presidency. Pointing out Hillary Clinton's flaws does not absolve Donald Trump of his. Trump is an obvious misogynist and racist (and strongly alleged perpetrator of sexual assault). He seeks to appoint literal neo-Nazi and alt-right figurehead Steve Bannon to his cabinet, among others who will undo every act of social progress we've made in the last century. Our already tenuous and spotty protections for women, minorities, and LGBT folk are in danger of utter nullification.

Why do you support this man? He is unqualified as a politician, with absolutely zero political leadership experience and no legal experience save for the hundreds of lawsuits he's been in. He breaks promises, gives glib, non sequitur answers whenever prompted with a meaningful question, and denies anything he himself theretofore said if it contradicts his current position. This is a man afraid to change his mind or admit fault. This is a man who scapegoats minority demographics to win people's votes. Is that what America, Land of the Free, is about? Does this man truly represent our nation's idealism and philosophy, or rather our darkest and most shameful moments in history?

This is a man who beleaguered a woman for breastfeeding her infant, who has mocked veterans for having PTSD, who has made the argument that he could not be a woman's sexual assailant because she's not pretty enough, not because sexual assault is a crime or morally reprehensible in some way.

And here also you have a man who made campaign promises to investigate (with the interests of imprisoning) Hillary Clinton, and already he has backed down. "Lock Her Up" was a rally cry and nothing more. He participates in Twitter flame wars. He flip-flops more than a gift shop at a beach resort. To put faith in Donald Trump is to swindle yourself. To expect that he will keep any promise is the falsest of false hopes.

Are we really looking forward to four years of prosperity and diplomacy, or will Donald Trump's impulsive behaviors and feeble articulation undermine his authority toward the nation and the world at large? Can we actually expect the prudence and maturity befitting of the President of the United States from Donald Trump?

No. We can't. This isn't an "I don't believe we can" -- this is a "we can't".